On 09/06/18 17:30, Brion Vibber wrote:
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:21 AM Alex Monk
<krenair(a)gmail.com> wrote:
For example where you said "IMHO
specifically because some people are
trying to avoid being bound by it or protesting its existence by looking
for loopholes to avoid it", which is not at all what that thread is about
as has been made very clear in that thread.
I disagree that it has been made clear. I found the opposite to be true in
my experience of reading that thread -- for instance the ability to exclude
the code of conduct from some interactions between developers and users was
cited as a desired feature, and thus a reason to want to avoid advertising
the code of conduct in the repo.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into the idea of wanting to avoid the code of
conduct as a proxy for not liking it?
I am genuinely at a loss how this could possibly be made any clearer.
People are already explicitly stating this. Yaron in particular stated
this from the start.
...
This is a bad analogy. Repository owners *are* essentially the admins, and
in this case get content control. The people involving themselves are more
akin to global users like stewards trying to override local admin actions,
and in this case they're not really supposed to have such control of
content. Like with on-wiki stuff, it's not really so bad when a global user
comes and does uncontroversial cleanup, but global permissions are not for
the purpose of involving oneself in local controversy.
I'll let that one stand. Sounds like a good analogy except that this is
exactly the sort of thing a steward might have to intervene for.
That is not what stewards do. They are not superadmins, but backups.
Support. As people with more general +2 normally do in specific
repositories.
Not just outsiders generally, but outsiders who have
not had a fair shake
in the past because the place has been unwelcoming or full of toxic
interactions.
Reducing toxic interactions is an important part of that, and sometimes
that means telling people who cause toxic interactions that they are not
welcome because we would rather have other people who are less toxic and
can bring different perspectives and representation.
-- brion
Perhaps I was too subtle the last time I hinted at this: this is toxic.
What you and others are doing misrepresenting what others are saying,
the general heavy-handedness, the implications that anyone against a
specific aspect of implementation is against the very concept of good
conduct...
Please stop.
-I